If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Damn, gotta play the final chapter again, I was about to watch the entire credtis as I usually do, but gaved up and hit 'skip' somwhere around the QA credits cause I was getting hungry. Strange, as the body of Conrad on the rooftop looks like it was dead for days.

Conrad was always dead. The game is you battling with your own demons.

Do you remember the movie Thin Red Line? When the American troops finaly storm the Japanese camp and find most of the enemies unable to fight? I got a similar vibe from the final level of Spec Ops. You storm the ridiculous sandbag fort, enter the living quarters which are strewn with personal items and Blueray movies. There is a corner with the dog-tags of the fallen and you can read the final order of Konrad, which says it was and honour to fight alongside his men and to hold out to the end. And either it was a glitch in the AI, or the few last troops on the top floor don't even attack you, they just hide behind cover and Walker has to methodically approach and kill them. At this point he has some kind of automatic grenade launcher which just jibs everybody in his way. I found this final slaughter to be really effective at driving home the point of who is the real villain.

Do you remember the movie Thin Red Line?
[...]
You storm the ridiculous sandbag fort, enter the living quarters which are strewn with personal items and Blueray movies .
[...]
I found this final slaughter to be really effective at driving home the point of who is the real villain.

Apologies for the radio silence since my last mega post, I’ve not had time to really formulate a proper response, but I’m also loathe to turn this into a “I’m right, you’re wrong thing” so I’m not going to engage on the points that have been written in response to my first points. Irrespective of what I do or don’t agree with everyone has raised their points with thought and eloquence which is all that counts. The main conclusion I’m drawing here is that everyone has been encouraged to engage critically with the violence and shooting in Spec Ops, and for that reason ( as I said earlier) I think it’s both an important and clever game in the main.

I’ve percolated my disappointment with it to being around its limitations as a mere comment on your classic WARFACE shooter type games and their presentation of violence rather than violence and war itself, and my problem with that is that it’s a pretty soft and easy target to begin with. It’s an Ivory Tower implying at the need for change, rather than an example for the genre to follow, and seems to be very content that that is the case. It could and should have been braver manifesto for change I feel. However, that’s just a difference of opinion as to what it’s ambition should be ultimately. It was only an opinion I came to after playing it, which maybe suggests this was a necessary blueprint.

It would be churlish of me to deny that it serves it’s intended purpose pretty well. And as someone who has been vocal about the conversation about violence in games needing to shift from the defensive (Videogames don’t kill people or encourage people to kill people) to more intelligent, constructive discourse (videogames not killing people does not however justify or explain the preponderance and overabundance of violence they contain) it would be remiss of me not to give it credit for attempting to be a real voice in that debate irrespective of what sort of scale it is or isn’t aspiring to. I look forward to games which make the point better and more stridently however, and which show the way forward rather than point at how backward the current tropes are without offering any suggestion or example as to how they might be bettered.

I’ve percolated my disappointment with it to being around its limitations as a mere comment on your classic WARFACE shooter type games and their presentation of violence rather than violence and war itself, and my problem with that is that it’s a pretty soft and easy target to begin with. It’s an Ivory Tower implying at the need for change, rather than an example for the genre to follow, and seems to be very content that that is the case. It could and should have been braver manifesto for change I feel. However, that’s just a difference of opinion as to what it’s ambition should be ultimately. It was only an opinion I came to after playing it, which maybe suggests this was a necessary blueprint.

I don't think it is truly meant to push for wide-reaching change. Instead, it just wants you to THINK about it.

Again, I bring up Clint Eastwood's greatest work: Unforgiven. That was a BEAUTIFUL deconstruction of the western genre that also examined things like the nature of a man and what not (and was a beautiful love story). But it was NOT meant to kill the western genre or take away people's enjoyment of those movies.

Spec Ops is a deconstruction designed to make you think. Plain and simple.

It would be churlish of me to deny that it serves it’s intended purpose pretty well. And as someone who has been vocal about the conversation about violence in games needing to shift from the defensive (Videogames don’t kill people or encourage people to kill people) to more intelligent, constructive discourse (videogames not killing people does not however justify or explain the preponderance and overabundance of violence they contain) it would be remiss of me not to give it credit for attempting to be a real voice in that debate irrespective of what sort of scale it is or isn’t aspiring to. I look forward to games which make the point better and more stridently however, and which show the way forward rather than point at how backward the current tropes are without offering any suggestion or example as to how they might be bettered.

I think one big issue is that you want this to be something else. You want it to be a beacon of change and something to shake up the industry.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

I don't think it is truly meant to push for wide-reaching change. Instead, it just wants you to THINK about it.

Again, I bring up Clint Eastwood's greatest work: Unforgiven. That was a BEAUTIFUL deconstruction of the western genre that also examined things like the nature of a man and what not (and was a beautiful love story). But it was NOT meant to kill the western genre or take away people's enjoyment of those movies.

Spec Ops is a deconstruction designed to make you think. Plain and simple.

I think one big issue is that you want this to be something else. You want it to be a beacon of change and something to shake up the industry.

For now I'd just be content knowing that there's a chance games might grow up a bit. That is until I accidentally stumble onto someone's "Pro kills montage" on YouTube. Then I realize there is no hope again.

I concur that it would be great if Spec Ops was somehow leading the charge away from the dismal nature of the MW style FPS, however I think one has to view these things as a case of evolution rather then revolution. A far more common currency as to how change occurs generally. Yager have shone a spotlight onto the the subject and shown it in stark relief, and it's become a talking point for people. It's enough that it's started a conversation about the nature of the FPS. I can't help but feel that perhaps that conversation may have informed the critical assessment of Farcry 3 for instance in terms of people questioning the whole 'mighty whitey' angle for instance.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

A little late to the conversation, but I beat this game today and I didn't have much of a reaction to it. I don't find it shocking that "I" incinerated civilians because the game has already trivialized violence by that point. Yeah, bombing people with WP is pretty nasty, but what about the 300 guys I killed leading up to that? The characters were blasť about it so to me the game was nonsense, just like CoD. 10 minutes into that game you're the god damn terminator so the character development during the game becomes ridiculous. The gameplay of the last hour supports Walker being a complete psycho (killing 10 guys a minute non-stop), the problem is that the game plays the exact same way from the start. I guess if those first few hours of the game made you feel like a badass then the bombing scene might be impactful, but I can't relate to that at all.

For now I'd just be content knowing that there's a chance games might grow up a bit. That is until I accidentally stumble onto someone's "Pro kills montage" on YouTube. Then I realize there is no hope again.

The game class of does provide you that choice, if you are ready to end the game at that position.I feel that there were extra positions in the game where thanks in big part to Lugo stick his nose in - the game was offering me a somewhat-honest choice between stopping or ongoing. As much as the game is lauded for its story. In my point of view story is not very attractive.gold coast computer repair

The characters were blasť about it so to me the game was nonsense, just like CoD. 10 minutes into that game you're the god damn terminator so the character development during the game becomes ridiculous.

What? These guys are professional soldiers. They are used to killing people. They were teached how to kill people. So they are doing it.
But even pros can be broken after burning to death about hundred soldiers and civilians which they wanted to rescue.

A little late to the conversation, but I beat this game today and I didn't have much of a reaction to it. I don't find it shocking that "I" incinerated civilians because the game has already trivialized violence by that point. Yeah, bombing people with WP is pretty nasty, but what about the 300 guys I killed leading up to that? The characters were blasť about it so to me the game was nonsense, just like CoD. 10 minutes into that game you're the god damn terminator so the character development during the game becomes ridiculous. The gameplay of the last hour supports Walker being a complete psycho (killing 10 guys a minute non-stop), the problem is that the game plays the exact same way from the start. I guess if those first few hours of the game made you feel like a badass then the bombing scene might be impactful, but I can't relate to that at all.

I had a similar reaction and I sincerely worry for people that felt guilt at that point. That much empathy for basic avatars is unhealthy imo. What I mean is, if you have a feeling there, you must be seeing these avatars as people or at least depictions of them, like you would the main characters of a good movie for instance. But that means you also have this feeling in COD or whatever, you almost have to right? But in that case, you are constantly slaughtering actual people for your own enjoyment without remorse, just because they were the bad guys...

I wrote it somewhere as a reaction on the main site already, this has made me rethink my stance on violence in gaming. If people actually feel 'punched in the gut', I think violence in games might be an actual problem.